Cryptopolitan

The Trump administration is finalizing voluntary standards for frontier AI model releases after months of executive orders, export controls, and forced model shutdowns.
Ordinarily, it should come as bullish news as AI firms are getting what they wanted after lobbying Washington since 2025 to preempt a growing patchwork of state AI laws.
The federal government swung into action late last year with an executive order that established an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state regulations and called on Congress to create a single federal standard.
The government then put a set of requirements, such as classified benchmarking requirements and pre-release government review periods. AI companies saw this machinery in action after Anthropic was ordered to pull two flagship models offline within days of launch.
What is the current federal framework for AI?
The Trump administration’s AI policy is carried by three executive orders, with the first, which was signed in December 2025, directing the Commerce Department to evaluate state AI laws and identify those conflicting with federal policy.
It also created the litigation task force to sue states whose regulations the administration deemed too burdensome.
The second order, which came in June 2026, tasked the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) with building a classified benchmarking process for frontier AI models within 60 days. It also introduced a pre-release evaluation window of up to 30 days of government access before covered frontier models can be shared with trusted partners.
Also, the administration stated that no new federal AI regulator will be created as oversight runs through existing agencies, which are mainly the NIST and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Now the US government is reportedly in advanced talks with AI companies to finalize voluntary standards for model releases, with an announcement said to be coming soon. The standards would set benchmarks for advanced models and clarify who can access them domestically and abroad.
The US government has had hands in directing AI product launches
On June 12, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick ordered Anthropic to block all foreign access to its Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5 models just three days after their launch.
Anthropic initially announced that it was pausing access to those models to non-US citizens indefinitely, but later stated that it could not enforce nationality-based restrictions and shut both models down for everyone.
The company also pushed back on the security concerns claims, calling the jailbreak “narrow” and stating that OpenAI’s GPT-5.5 could find similar software flaws without any bypass. Anthropic said it had conducted thousands of hours of red-teaming with the U.S. government, the UK AI Safety Institute, and private groups before launch.
Anthropic has since regained limited permission to sell Mythos 5 to more than 100 approved U.S. organizations, and Fable 5 access has been restored.
OpenAI has faced similar constraints, as it had to delay a full public launch of GPT-5.6 at the government’s request, limiting access to roughly 20 companies with individual government sign-off.
Google has also been in discussions with officials ahead of releasing advanced coding models with stronger cyber capabilities than previous generations.
The state-law problem has not gone away
The federal preemption push was supposed to simplify compliance for AI companies. The December 2025 executive order specifically targeted Colorado’s algorithmic discrimination law and called state-level regulation a barrier to innovation.
The order directed the Commerce Department to publish an evaluation of state AI laws within 90 days and flag those requiring models to “alter their truthful outputs.”
But preemption requires congressional action, and that legislation has not materialized. The states have not given up, as some have continued to forge ahead with their own AI regulations.
Companies that have been actively gunning for rules that are all-encompassing in the US are now faced with the state-level rules they wanted to escape and a federal apparatus that has proven willing to suspend products, gate releases, and impose export controls on short notice.
Both Anthropic and OpenAI are preparing for IPOs. Anthropic filed a confidential S-1 with the SEC on June 1 after raising $65 billion at an implied $965 billion valuation.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

Hyperscale Data Inc. (NYSE: $GPUS) has announced that it added 67 BTC to its balance sheet, joining Metaplanet as the second publicly traded firm to have acquired BTC so far in July.
The Las Vegas-based AI data center company said Thursday it purchased 67 BTC between June 30 and July 1, raising its total holdings to 849 BTC.
The new record puts the company ahead of Ming Shing Group, Yueda Digital Holdings, and SOS Limited as the 49th-largest publicly traded Bitcoin treasury firm.
Hyperscale Data says Bitcoin is an anchor for the company’s balance sheet. “We plan to continue acquiring Bitcoin through a disciplined dollar-cost-averaging strategy in order to maximize the potential for long-term upside,” said the company’s Executive Chairman, Milton “Todd” Ault III.
Milton says Hyperscale Data is undervalued
The latest purchase comes just two days after Hyperscale Data had announced it purchased 53.54 BTC, increasing the total treasury to 780.48 BTC.
At the time, the company revealed that its combined Bitcoin, cash, restricted cash, and silver holdings stood at approximately $106.7 million, representing about 117% of its common stock market cap.
Hyperscale Data Bitcoin Treasury, Cash, Restricted Cash, and Silver Holdings of Approximately $106.7 Million Represents 117.06% of Current Market Capitalization of Common Stock
Hyperscale Data ($GPUS) trades on NYSE American. 🚀
Read more here: https://t.co/BJhpvhtHjZ… pic.twitter.com/64gPMauOFF
— Hyperscale Data, Inc. (@hyperscaledata) June 30, 2026
Milton “Todd” Ault III used the disclosure to argue that investors are undervaluing the company in a release on Tuesday.
Last month, the company signed an AI compute deal with a California-based neocloud provider, which it expects to generate up to $1.2 billion in revenue.
Milton said the market cap of the common stock “fails to reflect the value of the Company’s reported assets, its operating businesses, and the magnitude of the opportunity before us after the recent signing of the transformational master services agreement at its Michigan AI data center.”
GPUS shares trade at $0.1529 at the time of writing, putting the company’s market cap at $53.212 million, according to Yahoo Finance.
Metaplanet announces 2,823 BTC purchase
Metaplanet also announced today it purchased 2,823 BTC on July 1, bringing its total holdings to 43,000 BTC, Cryptopolitan reported.
The latest acquisition pushes the company ahead of MARA Holdings as the 3rd-largest public traded Bitcoin treasury firm.
According to Bitcoin Treasuries, BTC supply held by public companies now stands at 1.268 million, marking a 0.6% increase over the last 30 days, despite BTC declining over 10% in the same timeframe. With BTC currently trading at $61,809, the supply is valued at $78.40 billion.
BTC 30-day price chart. Source: Coingecko
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

The central bank of Kazakhstan has issued its first license for crypto exchange operations under the country’s recently updated legislation for digital assets.
The permit will allow the authorized company to buy, sell and store cryptocurrency outside the narrow legal framework of the financial hub in the nation’s capital, Astana.
Kazakhstan starts licensing cryptocurrency exchanges
The National Bank of Kazakhstan (NBK) has granted the first license for crypto exchange services to a local company called Pax Finance.
The Astana-based entity will now be able to trade, keep and swap digital currencies for fiat, open branches and install Bitcoin ATMs across the country.
The platform will be operating within the country’s revamped regulatory framework for the cryptocurrency market, the business news outlet Kursiv reported Thursday.
In an announcement released a day earlier, the NBK reminded that the licensing regime for participants in the industry was introduced on May 1, 2026.
To operate legally in the Central Asian nation, crypto firms are required to also register with the monetary authority, the bank noted in a Telegram post on Wednesday.
Pax Finance was established on May 20, the media report further detailed. Among its founders are some prominent representatives of Kazakhstan’s financial space and fintech sector.
These include Arman Batayev, the owner of the Finmentor.kz channel on Telegram, who previously worked at EY and AIFC, the Astana International Financial Center.
And also Azat Bekmagambetov, one of the earliest members of Kazakhstan’s crypto industry and a founder of Central Asia’s first Web3 accelerator for crypto and blockchain startups.
Exchange license opens new chapter in Kazakhstan’s crypto history
Kazakhstan appeared on the global crypto map as a promising mining destination in the wake of a ban on the activity in China a few years ago.
To offer miners a legal option to exchange their minted coins, it initially allowed crypto trading exclusively on platforms operated by residents of the AIFC.
Cryptocurrency was formally recognized with the law “On Digital Assets” which entered into force in 2023, although transactions with it remained quite limited.
Nevertheless, digital currencies continued to be traded mostly on a peer-to-peer basis, on unregistered exchanges, or platforms based abroad.
This year, Kazakh authorities took a series of steps as part of new efforts to fight this shadowy turnover and turn the country into a regional crypto hub.
In early May, amendments were made to the Digital Assets Act, and later that month, the NBK adopted additional bylaws designed to legalize crypto-related flows.
The revised legislation envisages authorizing coin trading beyond the restrictive regime of the AIFC and aims to comprehensively regulate cryptocurrency circulation.
The crypto exchange license now marks the first time such a platform has been admitted to Kazakhstan’s wider regulated market for digital assets.
It comes against the backdrop of an ongoing crackdown on illegal trading activities. Local media previously unveiled that law enforcement agencies have shut down around 130 venues of this kind.
These entities, out of business as of the beginning of 2026, had processed a combined $127 million in transactions involving digital money.
The Kazakh authorities also said they had seized over $5 million worth of various property as part of their dismantling.
The government in Astana has been suspecting significant capital flight through cross-border transfers using cryptocurrencies, with President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev calling on officials to end the outflow of funds.
At the same time, the country is moving towards legalizing crypto payments inside its jurisdiction, as recently reported by Cryptopolitan.
While the national currency, the tenge, will remain the only legal tender in the case of direct purchases, crypto owners will be able to spend their coins on goods and services without breaking the law, using crypto cards that offer instant conversion to fiat.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

Google felt its latest European enforcement pain earlier today after the European Court of Justice rejected its final appeal against a €4.1 billion ($4.7 billion) antitrust penalty handed out by regulators on the old continent.
Today’s ruling, which is coincidentally the largest antitrust fine in the EU’s history, ends an eight-year legal inquiry into allegations that Google put rivals in straightjackets in the race to gain popularity among users of the Android operating system.
Despite pressure from Washington and serious Big Tech lobbying, the EU’s decision to uphold a record fine on the erring US tech giant sends a clear message: Brussels will enforce its competition rules, without any exceptions.
Does Google have any options after EU antitrust ruling?
Google has fought previous EU judgments on this Android antitrust issue for over eight years, escalating the case through different litigation rounds. However, the firm appears to have run out of options with the latest ruling by the European Court of Justice.
The European Commission first brought these charges against Google in 2018. At the time, the regulator said the US tech giant was involved in a quid pro quo arrangement where phone manufacturers only got access to its in-demand Google Play app store if they pre-installed Google Search and its Chrome browser.
The regulator’s stance is that, considering Android’s market dominance, dangling such benefits as a prerequisite was as good as gatekeeping the mobile search and browser markets.
Google has not caught much of a break throughout its challenge of the decision, other than in 2022, when the EU’s General Court trimmed the original €4.3 billion penalty to €4.1 billion. Even then, the court largely sided with the regulators on everything else.
That was when Google took the case to the European Court of Justice, the bloc’s highest court. The firm argued that it did not do anything that Apple was not already doing, and the latter has not been cited for it yet. It also made the innovation penalization argument.
However, the apex court did not see it the same way as Google. “The Court of Justice dismisses the appeal brought by Google and Alphabet, thereby confirming the penalty imposed on them,” the court stated Thursday. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, was found jointly liable for part of the fine.
The outcome was not unexpected. The court’s own adviser had recommended upholding the penalty in an opinion issued in June 2025, describing Google’s legal arguments as “ineffective.” Such advisory opinions are not binding, but EU judges typically follow them.
Google says Android remains ‘open’
A Google spokesperson pushed back on the decision, saying the judgment “failed to recognise our significant investment to ensure Android remains open, interoperable and free.”
The company noted it had already changed its licensing agreements in 2018 to comply with the original ruling. Under the revised terms, phone makers can license the Google Play Store without being forced to install the full suite of Google apps, according to Cryptopolitan’s earlier reporting on EU antitrust enforcement against the company.
A broader pattern of enforcement
The Android case is one of three major antitrust actions the EU has brought against Google since 2017. Combined fines across those cases now exceed €8 billion, according to the Wikipedia summary of EU antitrust proceedings against the company.
Brussels has also armed itself with newer tools. The Digital Markets Act, which took effect in 2023, gives regulators the ability to set rules for dominant platforms before violations occur rather than pursuing lengthy investigations after the fact. Google already faces multiple formal DMA probes, and the European Commission is preparing what could be the largest DMA penalty yet over how Google displays its own services in search results, according to Cryptopolitan.
The enforcement push has drawn sharp criticism from Washington. US President Donald Trump threatened retaliatory tariffs after the EU hit Google with a separate €2.95 billion fine in September over its advertising practices. For their part, EU lawmakers have insisted that their digital rules do not unfairly target American firms.
EU Antitrust Commissioner Teresa Ribera said in March that regulators are examining the “full AI stack,” including chatbots, training data, and cloud infrastructure, signaling that enforcement actions against Big Tech are far from over, according to Cryptopolitan.
What will Google do now?
Google has no further avenue to appeal. The €4.1 billion fine stands, and the company must continue operating under the compliance measures it adopted in 2018.
For the broader tech industry, the ruling reinforces that EU courts will back the European Commission’s enforcement decisions even when cases take nearly a decade to resolve. With the DMA now in force and additional investigations underway, companies operating in Europe face a regulatory environment where pre-installation bundling, self-preferencing, and platform gatekeeping carry real financial consequences.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

Standard Chartered has become the first globally systemically important bank to offer direct USDC minting and redemption.
The bank announced Thursday it has partnered with Circle to allow institutional clients to mint and redeem USDC, without needing direct Circle accounts.
Circle 🤝 Standard Chartered@StanChart has launched institutional USDC minting and redemption through DIFC, becoming the first G-SIB to offer institutional access to USDC through a regulated banking channel.
A major milestone for institutional stablecoin adoption.… pic.twitter.com/SufjFOqjyk
— Circle (@circle) July 2, 2026
The service launches first for Standard Chartered’s clients in Dubai, and will expand to other regions “subject to regulatory approvals and market readiness.”
Circle said the service allows for institutional use cases such as on-chain settlement, treasury, and liquidity management, with support for payment-related functions in the future.
“Digital assets are becoming an increasingly important component of global financial infrastructure, and institutional clients are seeking the same levels of trust and governance that underpin traditional markets.
With this launch, we are extending those standards into a rapidly evolving segment of the financial system,” said Standard Chartered’s CEO, Roberto Hoornweg.
Standard Chartered joins 140 other giants to launch OUSD stablecoin
The timing comes as more TradFi giants are increasingly dabbling in the stablecoin market amid growing institutional demand. As recently as June 30, Cryptopolitan reported that over 140 financial companies have joined to launch a shared stablecoin called Open USD (OUSD).
The founding members include Visa, Stripe, Mastercard, American Express, and other partners such as Standard Chartered.
Circle took a hit following the news, falling as much as 15%, as many viewed OUSD as a major rival challenging USDC’s business model.
Circle charges minting and redemption fees for USDC. OUSD launches with zero minting and redemption fees. The reserve yield is distributed among all partners, which serves as an incentive to use the stablecoin.
Ark Invest bets more on Circle
Despite a 41% decline over the past month, Cathie Wood’s investment firm, Ark Invest, continues to bet on Circle’s shares (CRCL). On Wednesday, Ark purchased a total of 287,609 CRCL for roughly $17.8 million across its ARKK, ARKW, and ARKF funds.
USDC remains the second-largest dollar stablecoin with over $73 billion in market cap.
Analysts at Bernstein maintain an Outperform rating for CRCL despite the OUSD announcement. Bernstein keeps its price target for Coinbase shares at $190, representing a 203% increase from the current market pricing.
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

UAE now has 101 regulated Virtual Asset Service Providers, and more than 50% of the licensed VASPs are in VARA (Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority) in Dubai, UAE. The regulator issued its most recent and 50th licensed VASP to Tribe Tokenization FZE.
On LinkedIn, Tribe wrote, “It’s been a long and challenging road, but today we are pleased to announce that the Dubai Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority [VARA] has granted Tribe its VASP license. A VARA license is not a stamp that makes an investment safe, and it is not an endorsement of any property we list.”
What is Tribe?
For those who are not familiar with Tribe, it is a Dubai-based, blockchain-powered real-world asset (RWA) platform specializing in offering investments in fractional real estate.
The company adds, “We have always said Tribe is built on governance first, where rights are defined before capital is invited, rules are written down, and sequencing that is not left to discretion. The license is external proof of the standard we hold ourselves to internally.”
It also noted that now with the license at hand and framework in place, it will be offering properties that are already in the pipeline to the market soon.
VARA Dubai on actively courting crypto
In its press release, VARA Dubai noted that since it started in 2022, the regulator has developed a licensed market related to different business models, services, and stages of the virtual asset value chain.
VARA also noted that the significance is not only in the number of licensed firms, but that these VASPs have chosen Dubai, which in turn has contributed to the economic activity in the city through high-skilled jobs, technology investment, physical office presence, as well as demand for professional services, and international capital flows. All this supports Dubai’s Economic Agenda D33.
VARA’s licensing process assesses applicants across multiple areas, including, but not limited to, governance, ownership, financial resilience, operational capability, technology, cybersecurity, risk management, compliance, and anti-money laundering controls.
Licensed firms remain subject to ongoing supervision and must continue to meet the conditions and requirements of their authorization.
NeosLegal, UAE Crypto & Web3 Law Firm, recently published the UAE VASP License Tracker, a public database of every active crypto license in the country. At the time of publishing in June, the tracker noted that across the UAE, there were 101 VASPs, 173 licenses, and 5 regulators.
VARA, with its 50 licensed VASPs, has issued 75 licenses, although some VASPs hold more than one license. The FSRA in ADGM Abu Dhabi has issued 67 licenses, the DFSA in DIFC has issued 23 licenses, and the UAE Central Bank has issued 5 licenses for payment tokens or stablecoins. Additionally, the Capital Market Authority in the UAE has issued 3 licenses in total.
The most prevalent licenses across the UAE are crypto/digital asset broker-dealer licenses, which make up 65 out of 173 licenses.
VARA and ADGM have issues 82% of all licenses. Starting in 2026, more and more licenses are being issued in the tokenization space.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

Christoph Jentzsch, a veteran Ethereum developer with no formal ENS governance role, has proposed shutting down the ENS DAO entirely. The treasury would be better handled if it were in the hands of an outside steward, according to Jentzsch.
This is the third competing idea for how the ENS should be run, with the two other ideas proposed by the ENS Labs’ Chief Operating Officer, Katherine Wu.
What is Christoph Jentzsch proposing?
Ethereum Name Service governance reached a new turning point on July 1 as the governance drama has started to attract suggestions even from people without any official role in ENS governance.
One day after Nick Johnson, the co-founder of the ENS DAO, used roughly half of the protocol’s active voting power to block an on-chain vote that would have renewed the DAO’s Security Council, Christoph Jentzsch, a well-known Ethereum developer, proposed that the DAO be shut down entirely, and its treasury given to an outside caretaker.
The DAO Security Council is a group with the power to cancel governance proposals even after they pass community votes and enter the waiting period before execution, known as a timelock.
Johnson explained that he had abstained from an earlier “soft” vote on the same issue while saying he supported renewing the council, just not with its current members. When the binding on-chain vote came, he voted against it because, in his words, none of his concerns had been addressed.
Jentzsch spoke to Johnson directly on X, explaining his idea of winding the DAO down over a set period, stripping all administrative powers from its smart contracts, and giving the remaining funds to an outside institution, such as the Ethereum Foundation or the newly formed Eth Labs.
Regarding the DAO’s fees and treasury assets, Jentzsch suggested to either burn the funds to stop people from grabbing up unused domain names, which is known as squatting, or dropping registration fees to zero. Although he admitted that could make squatting worse.
Part of his suggestions was to appoint a caretaker organization to manage the assets to help ENS grow.
Jentzsch estimated that the whole process could take 6 to 18 months and asked Johnson whether ENS v2, the next version of the protocol, could be finished in that time.
He later admitted that his plan had some “technical gaps” during his exchange with Johnson, but said the overall idea was still worth exploring.
Another community member, known online as Ariutokintumi.eth, suggested ENS switch to demand-based pricing for domain names as part of any changes.
Is the ENS DAO treasury at risk now?
Johnson’s vote against renewing the Security Council has caused concerns about the treasury being raided. Lefteris Karapetsas, a longtime Ethereum contributor and the founder of the tool Rotki, said on X that the DAO was now “dead,” arguing that Johnson’s voting power protects a treasury worth around $500 million from any outside checks.
Another delegate, who goes by Spengrah.eth, wrote on X that ENS Labs seemed to be positioning itself as the main controller of both daily operations and the Security Council at the same time, saying the DAO “looks like it has been captured,” with voting power sitting in only a few hands.
Data from DeFiLlama shows the ENS treasury is worth about $350 million in total, or roughly $88 million once you remove the ENS tokens the DAO itself holds. The ENS token was trading at just over $4 as of this week, giving it a circulating market value of around $166 million to $169 million. That price is down more than 95% from its all-time high of $85.69 in November 2021.
The gap between these figures means that someone could theoretically buy up ENS tokens for less than the treasury is worth, take control of governance votes, and then push through proposals to drain the treasury to themselves — something insiders call an “RFV raid.”
Alongside Jentzsch’s idea, ENS Labs’ Chief Operating Officer, Katherine Wu has written a proposal for a new Security Council. It was posted to the ENS governance forum the same day the renewal vote failed.
That plan would replace the current council with eight new members that will be chosen in the open. It would also make canceling a locked proposal require 5 out of 8 votes instead of the current 4 of 8. Johnson supports this plan and has even put himself forward as a candidate for the new council. Nominations are set to close by July 3.
Katherine Wu also shared a restructuring plan on June 19 that would hand day-to-day control, grants, and treasury management to the ENS Foundation. Tokenholders would still get to vote on protocol changes and could remove Foundation directors if needed.
The ENS community has days to pick between the different plans on the table for the protocol.
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

Retail traders are missing from the latest market cycle, after capitulating from BTC, ETH, as well as the meme token “trenches.” Analysts are now watching for a point where retail traders may re-enter the market.
Crypto retail traders are almost gone from the market, based on deposit activity on Binance. As Cryptopolitan reported, recent BTC trading is an arena of whale plays, where miners and other large holders transfer their funds to the exchange.
Based on the analysis of Darkfrost on Cryptoquant, retail inflows are near an all-time low. Inflows of under 1 BTC, indicating retail engagement, are near an all-time low. As BTC hovers around $60,000 with lowered sentiment, retail no longer expects significant returns or dramatic rallies.
Darkfrost also noted that the latest crypto trading cycle is going on without retail engagement. Retailers only send 329 BTC per day to Binance, down from a peak of 4,900 BTC in May 2021.
Overall, retail engagement has slowed down for both BTC and altcoins due to smaller returns and the appeal of other markets such as equities, metals, or oil.
Why are retail traders avoiding Binance?
On Binance, over 50% of traders and depositors are whales. The level of whale-sized participants remains elevated in 2025, as institutions, miners, or large-scale holders took the niche of retail speculation.
In 2026, whale participation remains elevated. Binance is also the venue for market makers and large-scale holders, while retail has given up on speculative trading.
Whale activity on Binance has been elevated in 2026, leaving retail behind. | Source: Cryptoquant
Other reasons for the outflow of retail buyers may be the availability of ETFs, allowing BTC exposure without self-custody.
Retail may also be waiting for stronger market signals to avoid becoming exit liquidity for whales.
Additionally, Binance suffered a setback by losing its MiCAR license for the EU market. European retailers may take longer to return, though the EU is not the main source of visitors to Binance.
Retail traders flock to alternative positions
While retail traders move away from BTC and crypto, Binance shows a notable increase in other areas. Binance accumulated over $1B in assets under management for its tokenized stocks trading program.
Retail traders also moved to precious metals, as well as the recently rising South Korean stock index, KOSPI. The loss of trust in memes, VC-backed tokens, and legacy altcoins led retail traders to seek higher returns with traditional asset classes.
As equity is cooling down and even NVDA is down in the past month, crypto sentiment may move from caution to increased enthusiasm.
Based on the whale-to-retail delta metric, currently, big holders are more optimistic in comparison to retail. Whales may be a leading indicator, as they have more detailed information and convictions. Retail may follow once new crypto narratives are established, and liquidity returns to DeFi and exchanges.
After the latest losses for gold, equities and energy, retail traders still showed up for a conviction trade.
The recently launched ANSEM influencer token reached a $100M valuation and showed that even the meme market could revive overnight with the right incentives. For now, ANSEM is an outlier, but retail has shown it has not abandoned crypto, only waiting for signals of improved sentiment.
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

The global travel industry has long been divided: consumer platforms focus on discovery, while corporate systems prioritize rigid compliance. For years, legacy infrastructure kept these worlds separate, but artificial intelligence is beginning to bridge that divide.
Social travel platform Staynex is building an AI-native ecosystem designed to support both retail and corporate travel natively. Following its recent acquisition of enterprise software company Helix and the integration of real-world assets (RWA) into its framework, the platform is targeting the structural inefficiencies of traditional booking models.
With guidance from industry veterans such as Priceline Co-Founder Jeff Hoffman, Staynex is adopting a more unified approach to the travel economy. We sat down with Yuen Wong, Founder and Group CEO of Staynex, to discuss the strategic rollout of Helix, regional destination stacks, and the future of AI-native infrastructure.
What market forces are driving the convergence of consumer and corporate travel platforms?
The biggest force is AI, but the second is the maturity of the AI-native business model itself. On the consumer side, travelers now expect booking to be conversational, personalized, and instant. On the corporate side, companies want the same speed, but with policy controls, spend visibility, compliance, and reporting built in. Historically, those have lived in separate systems. I believe AI is collapsing that divide.
At the same time, the economics of travel are pushing the market toward consolidation of functions. Discovery, booking, payments, loyalty, governance, and post-booking support have been too fragmented for too long. The next phase of travel belongs to platforms that can unify those layers into one intelligent operating stack rather than treating leisure and business travel as completely separate worlds.
That is why we acquired Helix — an AI-native corporate travel software company — and why we have been focused on RWA integration from day one. The play is not to layer AI features onto legacy systems; it is to build a foundation that operates natively on intelligence.
What does the recent week of back-to-back announcements regarding the Helix acquisition and key executive appointments represent for the Staynex roadmap?
It represents execution at a new level. For us, this is not about making noise — it is about putting the right infrastructure and leadership in place for the next phase of growth.
The Helix AI acquisition expands us into enterprise travel software, adding a full operational stack covering travel search, booking, compliance governance, and payments. However, the real strategic power of the Helix acquisition is in the leadership it brings.
Gus Fraser, Helix’s founder, steps in as our Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer (CAIO). Alongside him, our Chairman Jeff Hoffman — a Co-Founder of Priceline and Booking.com — continues to guide our broader strategy. The earlier Sleap acquisition strengthened our booking infrastructure and European footprint, bringing Michael Ros in as CEO of Staynex.
Bringing in leaders like Michael and Gus reflects a deliberate effort to build Staynex as a serious AI-native travel ecosystem with the right depth across product, engineering, market expansion, and organizational capability. This is not just a product rollout; it is a convergence of global travel intelligence.
How will the integration of Helix transform Staynex from a consumer-focused platform into a unified corporate and retail travel ecosystem?
Helix brings the capabilities that define enterprise travel: conversational booking, real-time policy enforcement, spend visibility and audit-ready reporting. With it, Staynex moves beyond consumer travel to also serve finance, operations and managed travel programs. But this is not a B2B bolt-on. Helix’s AI architecture will be embedded directly into our existing B2C concierge, sharpening personalization and accelerating member bookings on the same foundation.
That same foundation powers the launch of Staynex Black, our repositioned, invitation-only membership — an intelligent concierge for members who already have access, but not always time.
Helix provides the AI architecture behind Black: multi-agent orchestration, travel-specific memory, preference learning and a clear path to voice-first interaction, delivering a private concierge layer with fare intelligence, white-glove itinerary orchestration, priority policy handling and consolidated reporting across personal and business travel.
The rollout is deliberately measured — a launch worthy of the invitation — with members entering through private invitations and a founder’s note, supported by curated events, a concierge demo and a “Request your invitation” application flow with a limited founding-member badge for early entrants. Keeping Black invitation-only is intentional: small, signal-rich and aligned with the partners and accounts that anchor the top of our ecosystem.
The outcome is one intelligent infrastructure — serving the enterprise customer and the Staynex Black member alike — supported by AI-native operations across service, finance and partner onboarding.
Staynex recently partnered with Romain Grosjean. What role will the pilot play in the ecosystem?
Romain brings a very specific energy to the ecosystem: precision, speed, instinct, and resilience. At Staynex, we see personality-led AI as more than branding — it can become a differentiated interface for travel planning and commerce. This approach, as demonstrated by our earlier partnership with football legend Patrice Evra, proves that real utility and personality are not mutually exclusive in travel tech.
As “The Phoenix,” Romain becomes our second celebrity AI travel agent. He adds another layer to our AI concierge strategy by offering a distinct decision-making profile on top of the same booking infrastructure.
In other words, this is about creating AI travel agents with identity and real utility, not just promotional ambassadors. These AI agents are the “face” of our smart system, and having figures like Evra and Grosjean involved is part of how we bridge the gap between Web2 simplicity and Web3 empowerment.
What do your meetings with the World Bank and the Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau signal about your plans for regional hospitality ecosystems?
In Sri Lanka, the conversation was not only about attracting visitors, but about building what I call a “Destination Stack.” We explored how AI infrastructure, entrepreneurship, talent, digital nomadism, curation, and trusted storytelling can strengthen a country’s broader hospitality and tourism proposition. The panel looked at how Sri Lanka can move beyond traditional destination marketing to attract not just tourists, but also the right mix of talent, investors, and strategic partners.
That is very much how we think about regional hospitality ecosystems. The future is not just about room inventory. It is about connecting destinations with infrastructure, entrepreneurs, public-private alignment, and smarter global distribution. Our discussions with the Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau, and my own public remarks about meetings with the World Bank and other stakeholders, reflect that broader ambition.
Countries are starting to realize that the next generation of travel demand comes from digital natives and purpose-driven travelers, and we are building the tech to help them leapfrog into that future.
How will the equity fundraising campaign launched during this multi-destination week contribute to your platform’s plans?
For us, fundraising is about acceleration with discipline. We have always been focused on building real utility, real infrastructure, and real market fit. The purpose of the equity campaign is to help us scale faster across those priorities.
Given the timing, it will support platform integration, leadership expansion, regional ecosystem development, and the continued build-out of both our consumer and enterprise capabilities. Following the Sleap and Helix AI acquisitions, this is really about making sure we have the capital structure to execute on a much larger roadmap.
It is important to note that we are not building a points program; we are building a membership model where long-term users keep real travel benefits. The fundraising ensures we have the resources to translate that membership utility across both corporate and consumer markets simultaneously.
What operational and technological milestones await Staynex in its next phase?
Operationally, the next phase is about integration and scale. We are bringing together booking technology, enterprise workflow software, AI capability, and regional leadership into one platform and one operating structure. That requires disciplined execution across teams, systems, and markets. We have integrated the core team from Sleap, and with the upcoming addition of the Helix team, our operational and engineering capacity has expanded significantly.
Technologically, the milestones are clear: better conversational booking, stronger policy and reporting tools, deeper trip orchestration, and broader deployment of agentic systems across the organization itself. Our ambition is not only to build AI-powered products, but to operate Staynex as an AI-native group — across customer service, commercial operations, finance, supply management, and partner onboarding.
We have already activated our on-chain utility layer and have live products in the market. In July 2026, we will hit our next major milestone: executing the first on-chain allocation cycle to distribute platform revenue back into the system.
How will the global travel landscape shift once legacy industry players inevitably attempt to replicate AI infrastructures similar to yours?
They will try, and I think that is inevitable. But there is a major difference between adding AI features and building an AI-native travel company. Many legacy players are still operating on old stacks, old workflows, and old incentive structures. That makes transformation harder than simply launching a new interface.
I believe the industry will split into two camps: those using AI as a layer, and those using AI as a foundation. The long-term winners will be the companies that can connect intelligent interfaces with real booking rails, loyalty, payments, governance, and operational automation. When incumbents move more aggressively into this space, the market will accelerate — but it will also become clearer who is truly built for the next era of travel.
Our Chairman, Jeff Hoffman, has often noted that the next winners won’t just list hotels; they’ll build ecosystems that cut friction and give value back to the traveler. We are already building that ecosystem with the infrastructure we have acquired from Sleap and Helix, the RWA asset layer we pioneered, and the social travel ecosystem we are scaling.

Metaplanet has announced that it has purchased 2,823 Bitcoin, bringing its total corporate holdings to 43,000 BTC and placing the firm among the most active treasury buyers alongside Strategy and Strive.
The Japanese company disclosed the purchase in a post on X on July 2, alongside a separate notice detailing the results of its Bitcoin income generation business for the second quarter of fiscal year 2026. Metaplanet did not disclose the exact price paid for the latest batch.
A steady accumulator
Metaplanet has been actively buying Bitcoin this year, and this latest acquisition adds to the trend. The firm spent around $405 million to acquire 5,075 BTC at an average cost of about $79,898 per coin during the first quarter of 2026.
Those purchases pushed its holdings past 40,000 BTC and moved it ahead of MARA holdings to become the third-largest publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holder.
From that Q1 base of 40,177 BTC, Metaplanet has now added approximately 2,823 BTC over the intervening months to reach 43,000.
Is Metaplanet’s buying pace rivaling Strategy and Strive’s?
Data from BitcoinTreasuries.net shows that public companies collectively added close to 9,000 BTC (around $525 million) to their balance sheets in June. Strategy led with 3,625 BTC in net additions, followed by Strive at 3,364 BTC. MARA Holdings added 1,000 BTC during the month.
While Metaplanet’s latest BTC purchase was made on the first trading day of July, it still brings it to a comparable range with the two leaders. However, the firm is actively buying; some treasury firms have been selling their holdings during the same period. Fold Holdings reduced its position by roughly 634 BTC, Nakamoto Inc by 591 BTC, and Hive Digital by 331 BTC.
Did Metaplanet issue new shares in June?
Metaplanet disclosed that it did not issue any new shares through the exercise of stock acquisition rights during June. The company holds 947,300 outstanding warrants convertible into 94.73 million shares, with exercise prices that ranged between 220 and 295 yen last month. According to the platform, none were exercised.
This also means that the company did not raise dilutive capital in June, though it retains the flexibility to do so. Metaplanet also confirmed it conducted no share buybacks during the period.
Is Metaplanet building beyond its treasury?
Metaplanet has been expanding its Bitcoin strategy beyond simple accumulation. In June, the company completed the acquisition of Siiibo Securities, a regulated Tokyo broker, in a deal worth approximately 2.1 billion yen ($13.1 million).
The subsidiary will be renamed Metaplanet Securities and folded into an initiative called Project Nova, which aims to develop Bitcoin-linked bonds, tokenized securities, and other digital asset products.
Its Bitcoin operations have been responsible for most of its revenue.
In its fiscal year 2025 results published in February, Metaplanet reported an annual revenue increase of 738% to 8.9 billion yen ($58.12 million), with its Bitcoin income business generating roughly 95% of total revenue. Its operating profit went up 1,694.5% year over year. A non-cash Bitcoin valuation loss of 102.2 billion yen, however, produced a net loss of 95 billion yen ($620 million) for the period.
With Bitcoin trading around $60,100 as of July 2 and Metaplanet’s average acquisition cost reported at $107,716 per coin in February, the firm’s 43,000 BTC position carries significant unrealized losses on paper.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

Wyoming’s Senator Cynthia Lummis countered Senator Elizabeth Warren’s recent criticisms of the Clarity Act. She pointed to more than 16 statutory safeguards to refute claims that the bill creates loopholes for illicit finance.
The latest clash comes as lawmakers continue negotiations on the Senate version of the crypto market structure bill, with supporters pushing to advance the legislation before Congress’s extended August recess.
As previously reported by Cryptopolitan, Warren had previously argued that bad actors still utilize crypto networks to move billions, and the bill only threatens to dilute critical anti-money laundering protections.
At the moment, Republicans and Democrats are at odds over the crypto legislation. Nonetheless, the bill’s backers are working against the clock to pass it before the August recess.
Senator Lummis insists the bill provides protections against illicit finance
The Clarity Act is designed to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets by defining the roles of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), while introducing new compliance standards for crypto firms.
On X, Warren pointed to mounting evidence that hostile foreign actors are continuously using crypto to transfer billions, and that the CLARITY Act would only worsen that situation if passed as written. She particularly highlighted that Iranian groups have already routed an estimated $3.84 billion through CoinEx.
She noted:
The Clarity Act, as it’s currently written, would make this problem worse. Congress should be strengthening illicit finance standards, not creating new loopholes.
Senator Elizabeth Warren
But Senator Lummis fought hard against Warren’s criticism, saying that the Clarity Act provides protection rather than creating loopholes. She pointed out specific provisions—Sections 201, 303, and 305—that empower exchanges to freeze tainted assets, detail sanction provisions, and establish new anti-money laundering rules, and dismissed Warren’s warnings as completely groundless.
She wrote, “The Clarity Act has 16+ illicit finance safeguards, not loopholes.”
Nevertheless, Warren is not the only one to raise concerns about illicit finance and whether the legislation would help combat it or, instead, worsen the problem. Just last month, both law enforcement organizations and Catholic coalitions challenged Section 604 in separate letters, warning that its sweeping exemptions could weaken safeguards against criminal money movements.
Beyond concerns about illicit finance, the legislation has also come under fire for its other provisions and legislative process. For starters, banking groups have cautioned that it could give stablecoin issuers an unfair competitive advantage. The American Bankers Association said the changes could make them lose deposit yields as consumers embrace regulated stablecoins.
Additionally, other critics also pointed to potential loopholes in conflict-of-interest rules that could allow elected officials to benefit from digital asset activities. Earlier, Warren had advocated that the bill include provisions to halt the ongoing crypto profiteering by President Trump and his family.
She contended, “The crypto legislation heading to the Senate floor must prevent the president, vice-president, senior administration officials, members of Congress, and their families from profiting off the crypto industry,” said Warren. “If it does not, it will only turbocharge Donald Trump’s brazen crypto corruption.”
Her comments on Trump come after financial filings revealed World Liberty Financial made more than $500 million selling “governance tokens,” alongside another $600 million-plus pulled in by CIC Digital LLC from Trump-branded meme coins that debuted just days before he took office again
What are the chances the CLARITY Act gets approved this year?
Currently, the CLARITY Act’s odds of passage have slipped to 40% on Polymarket, weighed down by a compressed legislative schedule and renewed attention on President Trump’s $1.4 billion in crypto earnings. Earlier in June, the bill’s approval odds were as high as 64% on the platform.
The legislation needs at least 60 votes to advance in the Senate, and the tight congressional calendar only adds to the pressure. Lawmakers return from recess on July 13, giving lawmakers only a brief window before the August recess. Passing the Senate before then is crucial if the legislation is to be signed into law this year.
Aside from Polymarket’s odds, other platforms also show a downturn in the bill’s odds. Galaxy Research also lowered its legislative forecast for the CLARITY Act to 50% from 60% in June, noting the tight Senate floor time. Kalshi’s data also shows odds of 36-44% that the crypto market structure will pass this year.
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

On July 1, 2024, MiCA came into force across the European Economic Area. It established a regulatory perimeter for digital asset custody, capital adequacy, and consumer protection. Within 24 hours, the market absorbed what this meant: the EEA would optimize for institutional accountability and consumer protection in digital asset services. Capital routes accordingly.
But MiCA is not unique in making this choice. Every major regulatory framework makes one. Basel prices bank capital adequacy. GDPR prices personal data protection. MiCA prices consumer protection and institutional accountability in custody. Singapore’s MAS prices institutional sophistication and wealth management integration. Dubai’s VARA prices operational speed and market sovereignty. Hong Kong’s SFC prices settlement infrastructure and cross-border integration. Each framework is a different answer to the question: what should this market optimize for? The distinction matters because it determines which capital stays and which leaves.
The priorities
Consider what each framework requires platforms to absorb: MiCA mandates qualified custody, segregated client assets, minimum capital reserves, and enforceable grievance procedures. These are non-negotiable and costly. A platform in the EEA cannot operate without them. The cost is built into the business model. In exchange, the framework guarantees that institutional capital – pension funds, family offices, wealth managers—can be allocated to authorized platforms with the same due diligence they apply in traditional finance. Retail clients have enforceable rights. The regulator is accessible.
This pricing structure attracts specific capital: generational wealth transfers, institutional allocations, and long-term holders who value custody certainty.
What frameworks price
The capital split post-July 1 is not a flaw in MiCA. EEA retail and institutional capital that prioritizes custody certainty, regulatory accessibility, and enforceable rights concentrates under authorized MiCA platforms. This is not capital disappearing from crypto. It is capital being sorted by market design.
In traditional finance, this happened post-2008. Prime brokerage consolidated among a smaller number of highly-regulated, well-capitalized players. Higher-risk strategies, proprietary trading, and marginal capital routed to shadow banking and offshore structures. Systemic risk did not disappear—it relocated. The system became two-tiered: a regulated core and an unregulated periphery, each with its own capital sources and risk profiles.
MiCA creates the same structure.
What this reveals about market structure
The architecture is revealing because it answers a question the industry has avoided for over a decade: what does a mature digital asset market actually need? Digital assets began as a rejection of institutional gatekeeping. The original premise was that decentralized networks could replace custodians, that users could be their own banks, that regulation was unnecessary friction. A decade later, the market’s answer is more complicated.
Institutional capital entering digital assets does not want to be its own bank. Pension funds do not want custody risk on their balance sheet. Family offices do not want to operate their own cold storage. Sovereign wealth funds do not want regulatory ambiguity. These institutions have options. If digital assets cannot deliver the same custody certainty, capital protection, and regulatory transparency they get in traditional finance, they do not allocate.
MiCA’s pricing structure acknowledges this. It says: if you want institutional capital, you absorb the cost of custody infrastructure, capital adequacy, and regulatory compliance. The next 18 months will show which hypotheses the market validates.
The EEA consolidation effect
For the EEA specifically, July 1 forces a choice. Platforms either pay the cost of MiCA compliance or exit the market. There is no middle ground.
This creates consolidation. Smaller platforms cannot absorb the compliance cost. Marginal operators disappear. Capital concentrates under players with the scale and capital to meet minimum requirements and still compete on execution, fees, and product quality.
This is not a problem for the regulated core. Consolidation is stability. Fewer, larger, better-capitalized platforms means lower systemic failure risk and clearer customer protection. The cost is reduced competition and potentially higher fees.
The question is not whether MiCA is “good” regulation. It is whether the cost of compliance is worth the benefit of accessing EEA institutional capital. For platforms whose business model depends on that capital, the answer is yes.
The real question
MiCA reveals that regulatory frameworks do not price trust. They price market design.
Capital will route according to which optimization matches its needs. Institutional capital will split between frameworks that can deliver custody certainty, and frameworks that can deliver operational speed. Retail capital will split between regulated certainty and speculative access. Speculative capital will concentrate in non-custodial spaces where regulatory overhead is zero.
None of these flows disappears. They sort. And the next competitive cycle will be determined not by which framework is “best,” but by which markets built the infrastructure to actually deliver on the priorities they priced.
Eleonor Genova, Head of Communications, Nexo

The Korea Exchange (KRX) announced on July 2nd that the KOSDAQ listing rules have been changed so that public companies cannot covertly change their original technology businesses to investing in cryptocurrencies. This rule, which restricts one of Asia’s largest equity markets and sends a clear message to the growing trend in companies around the world to invest in Bitcoin or any other form of cryptocurrency as part of their cash treasury strategy, is being put into place by the KRX to stop companies from making these kinds of business changes without any warning or oversight from their investors.
The new rules state that when a company has entered the KOSDAQ through the technology special listing program, and it switches its main business within 5 years from the IPO date, they are now going to be subject to a formal review process for delisting as a result of the business change, which was announced by the KRX on July 2. The amendments became effective on July 2, and any crypto-oriented business changes made will now be included under the exchange’s rules for substantive listing reviews from that date forward.
KOSDAQ tightens tech listings
KRX representatives cited one example: a biotechnology company that utilized the tech-exception procedure to become publicly listed transferred control of its business to an overseas digital asset business and became a crypto investment vehicle.
The KRX announced that when this company made its pivot, it undermined the rationale for listing when it was initially approved. In other words, the KRX concluded that this company had been approved for listing on the basis of a technology characterization and growth outlook as a biotechnology business and that it could no longer depend on those characterizations and expectations for approval based on its current business strategy, because it was now a cryptocurrency investment vehicle.
The tech-exception process was introduced in 2015 to allow firms with strong technology characteristics but limited revenue to access the capital markets. Many successful examples of both KOSDAQ and KRX-listed companies are Alteogen and Rainbow Robotics, which are currently among the largest companies in KOSDAQ measured by market capitalization.
The process allows companies that have passed an evaluation of their technology by authorized evaluation organizations to access the capital markets without meeting the conventional profitability requirements. These companies are provided with a three- to five-year grace period from specific delisting requirements while they invest in commercialization of their technology. Earlier, Cryptopolitan reported that South Korea’s FSC is targeting ‘kimchi coins’ crypto whales in a price manipulation inquiry.
Recent data provided by the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS)indicates that 88.6% of the KOSDAQ 105 companies that qualified for their IPO pricing based on a projection through 2022 to 2024 used the tech-exception process. According to FSS, 79.1% of those companies did not meet their projected revenue, operating profits, and net profit, which leads to regulators’ concerns about the validity of the technology growth assumptions supporting the companies’ respective tech-exception capital increases.
KRX tightens grip on DAT firms
KRX’s announcement has come during an increase in the number of companies that have successfully adopted the DAT (Digital Asset Treasury) concept, which was pioneered by Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) and replicated by Japan’s Metaplanet, into their business model. Companies such as Bitplanet, which was established in July 2025 following the acquisition of SGA, a KOSDAQ-listed company, now have Bitcoin on their balance sheets and are reportedly planning to acquire even more of this asset class.
Two forces are putting pressure on these DAT firms. The new business-pivot rule penalizes companies that went public for one purpose and shifted to cryptocurrency operations afterward. The updated market capitalization requirement requires KOSDAQ-listed companies to have a minimum $20 billion market capitalization for the last half of 2026 and raise it again to $30 billion from January 2027, Chosun Ilbo reports. If a company is below the applicable minimum for 30 consecutive trading days, it will be designated “managed stocks” and will have 90 days to recover before possibly facing delisting.
The new minimums continue to add pressure to numerous crypto-centric companies already listed in Korea. Bitmax is in violation, having a capitalization of 13.1 billion at the end of June. However, Parataxis Ethereum and Bitplanet are above the minimum for now and below the future minimum scheduled for January, indicating both firms will need to either maintain or grow their capitalizations to remain compliant with the new maximums, Chosun Ilbo reports.
The cumulative impact of these changes significantly reduces the path of the regulatory process for those seeking to implement cryptocurrency treasury strategies. Korean firms that entered the public markets through the technology-special listing process are now subject to regulatory scrutiny regarding their current operations of the technology business for which they were originally listed. They will also begin facing regulatory scrutiny associated with the higher capital requirements they must maintain to continue to be compliant. Collectively, these reforms significantly reduce the options available to these firms for using the technology exception path to ultimately transition to cryptocurrency treasury operations.
South Korea speeds up delistings
In addition to the amended pivot rules, the revised rules will require tech-exception businesses to publicly disclose their plans for enhancing corporate value throughout the grace period; this will replace the previous “no conditions on the exemption from being delisted” rule. KRX is set to add industry-specific listing review criteria for advanced robotics, cybersecurity, and Korean content, and further expand those criteria to incorporate the defense industry in the latter half of 2026, according to Seoul Economic Daily.
KRX has established an independent disclosure system for low price-to-book companies and has shortened the duration of its substantive delisting review process from three stages to two as well as decreased the maximum improvement period from two years to one year, as reported by the Seoul Economic Daily. These changes are intended to expedite decisions regarding underperforming companies as well as to incentivize publicly traded companies to increase shareholder value and implement strong corporate governance.
According to Kim Sung-cheon, KRX team’s head of disclosure systems, at the 30th Anniversary KOSDAQ celebration, “about 50 companies” are projected to be delisted in this market capitalization phase alone. Delisting can begin as soon as August for managed stocks, according to the Seoul Economic Daily.
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

The Ethereum Foundation released a policy guide, outlining that Ethereum is to be classified as a neutral public infrastructure where both governments and institutions can turn for their needs. This could affect how all regulators around the world may see and interact with all public blockchains in general, and particularly with the tokens that operate on these public blockchains in the future.
This policy was prepared by the Ethereum Foundation Global Policy Strategy Team. It positions Ethereum as a decentralized alternative to the centralized digital systems that many governments currently rely on to conduct payments, verify identity, and store records. The document notes that there is a growing requirement for governments and institutions to have access to “shared, neutral digital public infrastructure,” which is becoming increasingly required due to global pressures – whether related to geopolitics, finance, or technology.
The Foundation describes Ethereum as an infrastructure that is “not controlled by any organization, individual, or state.” Similar to the fundamental technology of the Internet, Ethereum’s protocol is “open, programmable, and globally accessible”. For the cryptocurrency market, this is a significant shift in branding from having been a financial investment (the second-largest public blockchain by market capitalization) to now positioning itself as foundational public digital infrastructure which supports fundamental digital infrastructure services.
Ethereum points to $76B security moat
According to the foundation, centralized digital infrastructure has a single point of failure. Therefore, there may be a large group of cyberattacks, outages, and political pressures that can take down an entire system, or limit access to it. In contrast, since the launch of Ethereum in 2015, it’s been running continuously without interruption. Reports suggest that there are no other major blockchain offers this level of assurance.
According to OpenZeppelin, as of March 2026, there are approximately $76 billion in staked ETH securing the Ethereum network. This means that it would cost approximately $50.7 billion to finalize a fraudulent transaction, not including automatic slashing penalties, to commit fraud against the network. In contrast, other layer-1 blockchains that were reviewed (Binance Smart Chain, XRP Ledger, Tron, Solana, and Canton) had between one and seven outages, and had very little in the way of economic deterrents to attack.
The guide attributes Ethereum’s high level of resiliency to its governance model being decentralized. “Ethereum is a decentralized ecosystem that functions through the activity of a large, diverse, and global group of stakeholders. That breadth of participation is one of the things that makes Ethereum so secure, which in turn is what makes it the top choice for institutions, enterprises, and the public sector.”
The validator set of the Ethereum network is globally distributed across nations and legal systems, with no single nation’s validators having a large percentage of the total validator set. Anyone with a standard desktop computer and 32 ETH can participate as a validator in Ethereum, which the report describes as being far below the barriers of complexity imposed by other networks, which require enterprise-grade hardware and extensive systems administration experience.
Governments already experimenting
The guide highlights sovereign governments that have started implementing Ethereum-based solutions. Argentina and Bhutan have established decentralized identity schemes on the Ethereum blockchain, while Indian authorities are testing land registries using Ethereum to help decrease the risk of fraud when transferring property.
The foundation encourages lawmakers to come to a definition that separates public blockchains that anyone can use from those that an individual company or, in many cases, an organization controls. The OpenZeppelin report analyzed a public blockchain where an organization controlled about 42% of the token supply and had a large impact on which validators they select and their node list, traits that institutions would typically need to disclose and mitigate against in order to manage their risk.
Foundation targets govts and institutions
Timing is everything! There has just been a major, structural reorganization by the foundation resulting in approximately 20% of the workforce being cut and the creation of the “institutional layer” cluster whose sole purpose is to create engagement with financial institutions, enterprise organizations, and government entities. A separate nonprofit, Ethereum Institutional, also launched this week with backing from key ecosystem participants.
Both of these actions represent coordinated actions taken by the Ethereum ecosystem and its participants. The creation of the policy guide is also part of this overall strategy to provide readers with clear and balanced, evidence-based materials to help them assess Ethereum’s potential for providing utility to their respective governmental and institutional organizations. If governmental entities begin using public blockchain technology as foundational infrastructure, then the regulatory clarity generated would speed up the pace of institutional or financial commitment to the broader digital currency market and not just Ethereum.
In addition, the way that the Foundation has positioned its document as it relates to its competitive position should not be overlooked. The guide cites independent security audits and uptime data as opposed to corporate-backed layer-1 providers with a validator set controlled by foundations. These types of entities would subject themselves to a much more rigorous regulatory scrutiny, under the framework set forth in the policy guide.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

OpenAI has been discussing with the authorities in Washington DC about giving a 5 percent share of its company to the US Government, which will be valued at around $43 billion based on its estimated value of $852 billion, according to FT.
The idea is tied to Sam Altman’s push to give Americans a direct share of the money that artificial intelligence may create, while OpenAI tries to ease political heat before the highly expected IPO that aims to rival Elon Musk’s SpaceX blockbuster.
OpenAI seeks federal buy-in
Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, has told officials that public ownership could be a cleaner way to share the upside from AI. After first mentioning it, Sam has been the person carrying the idea into talks with Trump, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
The plan would not be limited to OpenAI. Sam and other company leaders have discussed a wider setup where America’s top AI developers each place 5% of their equity into a public vehicle. That vehicle could work like the Alaska Permanent Fund, which invests state oil money and sends benefits tied to that wealth to the state government and residents.
That wider list could include Anthropic, Alphabet (GOOGL) through Google, Meta Platforms (META), and other U.S. AI companies.
OpenAI and Anthropic have both dealt with U.S. reviews that slowed the rollout of their newest models. Some Republicans and Trump advisers want tighter rules for the sector.
Both OpenAI and Anthropic are also preparing for future public listings. An IPO would open their ownership to a broader market and could hand large paper gains to current backers.
Sam has also spoken with Senator Bernie Sanders, who has gone much further than the 5% idea, pushing instead for public ownership closer to 50% of every major U.S. AI company through a sovereign wealth fund.
Back in April, OpenAI had called for a public wealth fund that would give “every citizen” a stake in AI-driven growth, including people who do not own stocks. In May, the OpenAI Foundation, its nonprofit arm, said society may need systems that give people “durable stakes” in the technology creating new value. The foundation also said the goal should include giving people “a stake and a voice” before major economic decisions are already finished, according to FT.
Trump expands federal equity stakes
In the second tenure of Trump, the US government has invested about $21 billion through 16 different corporate acquisitions, converting federal funding, including CHIPS Act-like grants, to equity stakes.
The biggest known holding is Intel (INTC), which the government took about a 10% position in after support tied to the CHIPS Act was reworked into equity at $20.47 per share. Financial media tracks the position as being up about $40 billion, which works out to roughly a 370% gain.
As Cryptopolitan reported at the time, Trump had earlier attacked Intel’s chief in public, then backed the chipmaker after Washington became a major shareholder.
The US government now also holds shares in MP Materials (MP), though the exact funding amount was not disclosed because the deal is tranche-based, but the stake is estimated at near 15%. The position is tracked at about a 136% gain and comes with a 10-year Pentagon purchase contract for rare earth magnets.
Trump administration’s portfolio also includes L3Harris Technologies (LHX), where the government holds a minority stake tied to defense and communications. That position is tracked at an 11% loss. GlobalFoundries (GFS) is another public holding, with a minority stake in the semiconductor foundry now beating the S&P 500.
Four other public positions are not named in the data released by the White House. What we know is that one is a defense or tech contractor using part of the remaining $9.9 billion and is beating the S&P 500. Another is a critical materials company also ahead of the index. A manufacturing supplier is underperforming. A logistics or technology company is also lagging.
Out of the eight public stocks in the US federal portfolio, five are currently ahead of the S&P 500, though the values change with market prices.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

According to data published by BitcoinTreasuries.NET on July 2, K Wave Media (KWM), a South Korean company listed on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol KWM, has sold off its entire Bitcoin holdings of 88 BTC to pay down approximately $6 million in debt, thus leaving K Wave Media with nothing else in cryptocurrency.
This sale effectively removes K Wave Media from the dwindling number of public companies with Bitcoin on their balance sheets and also closes out what was once an ambitious chapter last year when the company agreed to raise $1 billion in financing capacity and accumulate 10,000 BTC.
That ambition was short-lived, however. In May 2026, K Wave Media filed a Form 6-K with the SEC to report that it would re-allocate up to $485 million of its remaining Bitcoin treasury fund to build out its infrastructure focused on AI, including purchasing data centers and GPU compute resources, and acquiring other related companies.
CEO Ted Kim stated at the time that the shift in emphasis from a corporate Bitcoin treasury would be to establish a foundation in what he characterized as an emerging market for AI infrastructure, according to BloomingBit.
With the sale of the 88 BTC K Wave Media has completed its exit from being one of several corporations, like MicroStrategy (now MSTR), that provide companies with an entry into corporate Bitcoin treasuries. K Wave Media now owns no Bitcoin.
Balance-sheet resilience may matter more than Bitcoin prices
K Wave Media’s 88 BTC holdings pale in comparison to Strategy’s 843,706 BTC treasury and many mid-sized corporate holders of BTC. However, K Wave’s liquidation exemplifies the fact that a corporation’s ability to sustain a corporate Bitcoin treasury has as much to do with the liquidity of its balance sheet and the company’s overall capital allocation priorities as it does with the Bitcoin price and the amount of company-owned BTC.
K Wave Media provides a warning to new adopters of the corporate Bitcoin treasury model, with its reliance upon external sources of financing to fund its Bitcoin accumulation. Once K Wave shifted its primary focus from its BTC holdings to developing its AI infrastructure while having approximately $6 million in debt obligations, it sold all of its BTC in order to protect its liquidity.
More recently, Treasury companies have adjusted their funding strategies as their respective business priorities have changed since Strategy popularized the corporate Bitcoin treasury model with the initial $250 million BTC capital raise in August 2020.
Prenetics, for example, has grown from its original equity funding to solely expanding its IM8 health business and abandoning any further purchases of BTC, while the Smarter Web Company has continued to acquire BTC pursuant to its “10 Year Plan” and by raising equity and issuing convertible notes. Vanadi Coffee of Spain is following a long-term accumulation strategy of BTC funded by shareholder-approved capital increases and anticipated convertible bond issuance.
These variations demonstrate that a corporation’s ability to grow or sustain its corporate Bitcoin treasury is primarily a function of each company’s balance sheet and capital allocation strategy relative to their operating cash flow and continuing access to the capital markets.
On the other hand, companies with diminished access to liquidity, increased debt levels, and competing priorities may elect to redeploy their capital and liquidate their Bitcoin treasury rather than hold their Bitcoin, as demonstrated by K Wave Media’s liquidation, which is an early example of how balance sheet pressures may stop intended corporate Bitcoin treasury ambitions.
K Wave Media’s broader restructuring
The Bitcoin exit is part of a broader restructuring of the company. In early June 2026, K-Wave Media terminated its share purchase agreement with Solaire and announced its intention to retire approximately 9.8 million ordinary shares, which represents a decrease of approximately 13% of its outstanding shares.
Additionally, on June 18, 2026, the company received notice from Nasdaq that they were deficient with respect to minimum market value requirements, according to filings on GlobeNewswire. The company stated its intention to make efforts to bring itself back into compliance. A shareholder meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2026, at which the shareholders will vote on rebranding the company as Talivar Technologies, as reported by BloomingBit.
The extent to which other small-cap bitcoin treasury companies will follow K-Wave Media depends very much on where Bitcoin trades over the next few months.
Companies that purchased at or near the cycle highs and are burdened by debt will be faced with the same arithmetic as K-Wave Media, which is to either hold onto an asset that is depreciating or to sell that asset to meet the company’s obligations.


If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

On July 1, shares of Meta jumped 8.81% to finish at an all-time high of $796.25 after the release of the news about the company’s plans to use its surplus AI computing power in its data centers for commercial purposes. This increase helped make Meta one of the best-performing stocks on Nasdaq, although the rest of the market fell short. The S&P 500 index closed down 0.22% at 7,483.23.
Technology stocks suffered as well, with the Nasdaq Composite index losing 0.66% (to 26,040.03) and the PHLX Semiconductor index falling 6.27% due to a large sell-off in stocks of AI and semiconductor companies.
The decision to rent excess AI computing power is likely to put Facebook’s and Instagram’s parent now in competition with major public cloud vendors [Microsoft, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Alphabet] and newer companies such as CoreWeave, who provide GPU rental services to customers who develop AI applications and processes, because Meta’s use of excess computing capacity may limit the use of these companies for rental services.
Reuters stated that investors viewed this decision as a long-term source of return for Meta, given their rapidly growing and expensive AI-related infrastructure investments, and as a means of reducing revenue dependence on advertising.
Gil Luria, managing director of D.A. Davidson, believes that most of the impact in the market will be felt by AI-focused data center operator firms instead of large-scale cloud service providers, noting that “adding Meta’s capacity to the market is more likely to be on neoclouds than the big hyperscalers.” He added that companies such as CoreWeave and Nebius rely heavily on Meta for growth and “Meta may not need them anymore.”
Meta looks to monetize excess AI compute
Reports suggest that Meta may create a commercially available way for customers to access spare compute capacity from its exponential growth in its AI data center network, as well as provide developers the ability to run AI models on its infrastructure.
The model reported to be under consideration appears to be similar in design to AWS’ Bedrock platform, where users pay to access hosted foundational models via APIs, with the alternative being considered is similar to CoreWeave’s rental of raw GPU compute capacity. Current development of such plans continues, and no plans have been made public for a formal launch or commercialization at this time.
Considering that Meta has historically created AI infrastructure solely for the development of internally-facing products, this shift represents an important commercial evolution as well. In reference to this shift, during the most recent shareholder meeting in May 27, 2026, CEO Mark Zuckerberg made note of an increasing volume of interest being expressed from companies outside of Meta in its AI infrastructure when he said:
“It’s definitely on the table. Almost every week different companies come to us from the outside asking us to both stand up an API service or asking if we have compute that they could buy from us at some premium to what we’ve bought it at.”
Zuckerberg added that Meta had not pursued the opportunity because it still expected to use the capacity internally, but said selling excess compute would become an option if the company ultimately overbuilt its infrastructure.
The announcement comes at a time when investors are increasingly questioning the return on massive AI capital expenditure across big tech. Meta, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Amazon are collectively expected to spend roughly $725 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026.
Meta alone expects capital expenditures of up to $145 billion, one of the largest AI investment programs in the technology sector. Monetizing excess compute could provide investors with a clearer path toward generating revenue from those investments.
Although Meta has yet to announce pricing or packaging of its proposed cloud services, it is entering an already-established market. AWS usually charges on a pay-as-you-go basis for GPU instances or API usage through Amazon Bedrock, while charging separately for separate instances of model inference and compute resources based on the individual hardware and specific model chosen.
However, CoreWeave focuses exclusively on the rental of dedicated high-performance NVIDIA GPU clusters for AI training/inference via only enterprise contracts and reserved capacity contracts.
As such, industry analysts will watch if Meta competes on price, uses its own infrastructure to undercut its competition pricing-wise, or offers access to its proprietary AI models as part of its compute service bundle offering.
Investor sentiment is still fragile
While July 1’s rally partially offsets a challenging period for the stock, Meta is still down almost 8% since the start of the year, reflecting continuing doubts from investors regarding whether significant AI investments will result in reliable growth of revenues.
Selling off excess computing resources will address this issue directly; it will enable Meta to turn excess data centre capacity into income-generating assets rather than fixed costs. It will also enable Meta’s business to diversify to include more than digital advertising by developing an enterprise infrastructure business similar to Amazon, Microsoft, and Google’s successful ones, which have become key engines of profit for those three companies.
Moreover, Meta has decreased its workforce and greatly increased its level of investment in AI. Consequently, the financial results of its infrastructure business strategy became even more critical to investors assessing Meta’s long-term profitability.
Meta must clarify pricing, models and launch timing
It is still uncertain whether or at what scale Meta intends to launch their cloud offering. The project currently exists as a work-in-progress rather than as a finished product, and to this point, Meta has not publicly disclosed any information regarding the service.
Investors will want to keep a close eye out for additional information on Meta’s AI cloud offering, particularly with regard to the pricing structure compared to key competitors like AWS, Google Cloud, Azure, and CoreWeave. Other crucial things to look out for include:
whether or not Meta will provide hosted AI models, raw GPU compute, or both at launch
whether or not any of its flagship models will be accessible through APIs
when to expect news about any enterprise partnerships or early adopters
and whether or not this new revenue source has enough potential to offset the company’s rapidly increasing costs associated with building an AI infrastructure.
If launched, this would be the first significant effort by Meta to create a direct revenue stream from their AI infrastructure, which could fundamentally change the way hyperscale cloud providers compete with one another as well as how the fast-growing AI compute market evolves.


Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

On July 1, dYdX launched Arcus on the Robinhood Chain. Arcus is a decentralized exchange that supports tokenized equities and perpetual futures. Following the reveal of Arcus, trading volume soared over 650%, and the price of DYDX dropped to $0.138, representing a 23% decrease in value during those 24 hours.
The introduction of Arcus fundamentally alters how companies compete in decentralized derivatives trading. It offers traders a way to trade tokenized stocks 24/7 and trade options that have much larger potential payout values against previously existing “crypto-only” trading options. The Arcus platform will give users access to 95 tokenized equity stocks, as well as access to previously existing “crypto-only” trading options.
The partnership between dYdX, one of the largest DeFi protocols, and Robinhood’s infrastructure represents a new opportunity to facilitate tokenized stocks to global users. This partnership brings both companies closer together in the ongoing push for a digital solution for tokenized assets.
Arcus is also one of the first DeFi platforms launched on Robinhood Chain, which is Robinhood’s newly unveiled Ethereum layer-2 blockchain created using Arbitrum Orbit technology.
Robinhood Chain provides developers with a stronger environment for creating Real World Asset (RWA) tokens by combining EVM compatibility with Ethereum settlement. By building on Robinhood Chain, Arcus gains access to an ecosystem designed specifically for tokenized assets rather than a general-purpose DeFi network.
What Arcus is and who built it
According to Antonio Juliano, founder of dYdX, the launch of Arcus was a collaborative venture between dYdX Labs and Robinhood Crypto. The new CEO and co-founder of Arcus will be Eddie Zhang, who previously worked at dYdX following the purchase of Pocket Protector. Juliano will be moving to an executive board position to mainly focus on long-term strategy, while a part of the future Arcus Token will be allocated to the dYdX community.
Juliano did not specify how much of the future Arcus Token will be allocated to dYdX community members, how to be eligible for that allocation, when the future Arcus Token will vest, or when the future Arcus Token will be distributed.
Neither Arcus nor dYdX Labs have issued any official tokenomics or governance documents explaining how the future Arcus Token will be allocated to dYdX community members, potential investors, employees, or participants in the ecosystem as of July 2.
“The best move for me, for the team, and for the dYdX community is Arcus, with Eddie at the helm,” Juliano wrote.
As of today, the Arcus Team announced the launch of zero-fee spot trades for 95 tokenized stocks. The current status of perpetual futures trading is under private beta testing for only institutions and large volume traders. A public waitlist is available to all other individuals who want to access perpetual futures once more information is available on when those individuals can expect to have access.
The team has not announced a target date for a public rollout of perpetual futures. The timeline for opening derivatives trading to all eligible users remains one of the platform’s most closely watched milestones.
Why DYDX sold off
At first glance, you might think that the token has suffered an unusual decline of 23%, given that dYdX is announcing a major product. However, the structure of the deal indicates why the token is responding the way it is. Arcus is a completely different company and will have its own token issued in the future.
The transition of Chief Technology Officer Juliano to Board Member and the commitment to continue to support dYdX v4, rather than actively developing it further, leads many traders to interpret that there’s a possibility that most of the future innovation for dYdX will occur with Arcus versus the existing dYdX Chain.
According to CoinMarketCap, before the news, DYDX volume had risen to a high of about $127 million in the first 24 hours following the announcement – more than six times its average trading volume on typical days- and DYDX’s market cap dropped to about $116.5 million, ranking around 160th in market capitalization.
Arcus links stock exposure with crypto derivatives
Juliano acknowledged in a blog post that when the dYdX Chain attempted to be completely decentralized, it sacrificed something – mainly performance, user experience, and being able to compete with other platforms that have focused on execution speed, ease of use, and being liquid enough to gain market share.
The intention behind Arcus is to fix these concerns by focusing on trading performance and user experience. The exchange will utilize the Robinhood Chain, which is an Ethereum Layer 2 network based on Arbitrum Orbit and will be fully EVM-compatible, allowing for the creation of tokenized RWAs.
Robinhood Chain was created to provide self-custodied, low-cost executions and work with the broader Ethereum ecosystem, taking advantage of Ethereum’s settlement security; however, Robinhood has not yet publicly released any detailed performance specifications like transaction throughput, latency, or finality.
The plan for the exchange is to allow traders to use their tokenized stock positions as collateral for perpetual futures. This will allow cross-margining of equities and crypto derivatives within the same account. If this is executed successfully, it would reduce the amount of capital fragmented between crypto and equities by allowing traders to maintain stock exposure while opening leveraged positions in crypto.
Arcus and its major competitors
Feature Arcus Hyperliquid dYdX v4 Blockchain Robinhood Chain (Ethereum Layer 2) Hyperliquid Layer 1 dYdX Chain (Cosmos) Virtual machine EVM Custom execution environment Cosmos SDK Tokenized stocks 95 at launch No No Crypto perpetuals Private beta Live Live Spot trading Yes Limited No Primary focus Tokenized equities + crypto derivatives Crypto perpetuals Crypto perpetuals Native ecosystem Robinhood ecosystem Independent dYdX ecosystem U.S. availability Not available Jurisdiction dependent Jurisdiction dependent

Arcus differs from Hyperliquid and dYdX v4 by pursuing a differentiated strategy; whereas Hyperliquid and dYdX v4 focus solely on perpetual futures in crypto-native formats, Arcus seeks to bridge the traditional asset/investment markets with the decentralized market, by offering tokenized equities, spot products, and derivatives on one platform.
The platform is not available in the United States, Canada, or the United Kingdom, according to the disclaimer on the Arcus blog. Tokenized stocks on Arcus are structured as contractual claims against an issuer for cash redemption rather than direct ownership of the underlying shares.
As a result, users are exposed to additional risks, including issuer credit risk, liquidity constraints, price divergence from the underlying equities, and evolving regulatory treatment of tokenized securities.
Futures rollout and tokenomics become the next test
Arcus has not provided a confirmed public launch date for perpetual futures, nor has it released tokenomics for its planned native token. Investors will be watching three major milestones over the coming months: the opening of perpetual trading to retail users, publication of detailed Arcus token allocation terms for the dYdX community, and evidence that Robinhood Chain can attract meaningful liquidity in competition with established decentralized derivatives exchanges.
Whether Arcus ultimately succeeds in drawing trading volume away from competitors such as Hyperliquid while preserving value for existing DYDX holders will determine whether this strategic pivot strengthens the broader dYdX ecosystem or accelerates liquidity migration toward a new platform.


The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

Drift Protocol has announced that it is rebranding to Velocity DEX as part of its relaunch effort after the Solana-based perpetual futures exchange lost over $280 million in an April 1 exploit attributed to North Korea’s Lazarus Group.
The company’s rebranding is backed by a $127.5 million credit line from Tether. As part of the agreement, USDT will be replacing USDC on the platform.
Drift Protocol is rebranding to Velocity Dex
Drift Protocol announced a rebrand on X using the project’s official account, which now operates under the handle @VelocityDEX. “Our new name reflects the new and improved platform that we are building,” the team wrote.
Drift’s original platform has been offline since April 1, when attackers compromised its multisig wallets and drained assets across 31 transactions in roughly 12 minutes. Blockchain investigator ZachXBT and security firms Elliptic and TRM Labs linked the attack to the Lazarus Group, the same North Korean cyber unit behind the $1.4 billion Bybit hack.
Eleven DeFi protocols that used Drift for yield or vault strategies had funds stolen or frozen, including Pyra, which lost all its deposited funds, and DeFi Carrot, which saw half its TVL wiped out.
The company struck a deal with Tether, which was announced in April, and commits approximately $127.5 million to support the relaunch. As part of the agreement, the exchange is switching its core stablecoin from Circle’s USDC to Tether’s USDT, a move that affects its 128,000 users and more than 35 ecosystem teams, according to Cryptopolitan’s earlier coverage of the deal.
One of the first to defend the rebrand after users began criticizing it, a Velocity DEX protocol engineer, who operates the @redacted_noah handle, stated that the Tether deal is not a bailout. According to the handle, “Tether wants a top perp exchange running on USDT,” but stopped short of going into detail because, by his own admission, he didn’t “know the actual terms of the deal.“
Can users still expect to be compensated?
Recovery for affected users runs through a token-based compensation system. Each impacted wallet received recovery tokens representing $1 of verified loss. Users can only cash in their tokens when the recovery pool reaches $5 million. The pool started with $3.8 million from what was left of the protocol’s assets.
The pool is expected to grow through quarterly exchange revenue, the Tether commitment, and up to $20 million from strategic partners.
Users who redeem early receive only a pro-rata share of whatever the pool holds at that point and forfeit their remaining claim. That structure has drawn sharp criticism, with one user calling a related DAO vote on reallocating Insurance Fund assets “effectively an attempt at money laundering.”
Data from DefiLlama shows Drift’s total value is locked at approximately $217 million, down from over $550 million before the exploit. The DRIFT token trades near $0.017, close to its all-time low. Perp volume and DEX volume have both been at zero since the platform went offline, but the company’s annualized fee revenue sits at roughly $35 million based on prior activity.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.